Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 1238 (ALL)

Kanhaiya Lal v. Gaon Sabha

1978-12-14

H.N.AGARWAL

body1978
JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by, Kanhaiya Lal against the order dated September 16, 1974 passed by the Tahsildar, Etawah in proceedings under Section 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. On report of the Lekhpal dated March 5, 1973 a case under Section 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act was registered by the Tahsildar against Kanhaiya Lal and Ram Chandra and notices in ZA Form 49-Ka was issued to the effect that they had dug Kankar from plot No. 540 and 799. These persons have, however, contested that they had obtained the permission for digging the Kankar from the Gaon Sabha and had obtained a receipt of Rs. 40/-. The learned Tahsildar after recoding evidence have imposed damages of Rs. 1,000/- Kanhaiya Lal has challenged this order in revision. 3. The impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that land in dispute belongs to the Gaon Sabha and that the revisionist was taking Kankar from the disputed land with the permission of the Gaon Sabha. The receipts granted by the Gaon Sabha are also on record. As such no proceedings under Sec. 122-B of the UPZA and LR Act may be taken. 4. It has also been argued before me that the notice issued in this case does not contain the ingredients provided under Rule 115-D of the UPZA and LR Rules. In support of this argument two decisions 1975 R.D. 192 and 1978 R.D. 245 have been cited. A perusal of the notice shows that it is highly defective. It does not even disclose whether any Gaon Sabha property has been encroached upon or destroyed or whether any damage has been caused. Digging Kankar out of uncultivated land is a normal activity and the Gaon sabha are entitled to accord permission for this on payment of premium as has been done in the present case. 5. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order.